Gun Control and the Right to Bear Arms: a Foreign Perspective on the Pro-Gun Lobby

Looking down the barrel of a semi-automatic pistol - a frightening, yet all-too common sight | Source

Introduction

Recent atrocities in America involving mass killings by people armed with guns have re-ignited and heightened the continuing debate on gun control, individual rights, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Opinion polls suggest that America is deeply and passionately divided on this issue, whilst Internet posts on the subject suggest that some Americans will go to extreme lengths to counter any changes in the law. It does seem that America - in tackling this difficult problem - is facing a long, traumatic and potentially lethal battle for hearts and minds.

The Purpose Of This Page

I should make clear the primary purpose of this article. The key concern of mine (as a British citizen) is not so much gun control which is an issue purely for Americans to decide. I will give my views on this, because I think it is necessary to explain my standpoint, but I must say that the motivation behind this article is not gun control per se, but the very shocking eye-opener about aggressive human nature which I have received from several visits to gun lobby web sites, and the outspoken comments of some who write on these sites. No aspect of human nature since the Cold War - apart perhaps from the words of fundamentalist religious extremists in some parts of the world - has seemed more worrying to me than the viewpoint of a minority of Americans on this issue.

The Quotes

Throughout this page I will include quotes from some of the more radical opinions expressed on the pages I visited. An abbreviation of several quotes was necessary, but I will not change the quotes to correct for bad grammar or spelling, or of course to change the emphasis, as I feel it is necessary to present the full strength of opinion exactly as it was intended to be read in a public forum. (The quotes are in bold, and any words in brackets included within the quotes are my own added comments which are included for clarification).

My Involvement In The Issue Of Gun Control

Some time ago some information was shared with me about a pro-gun lobby forum on the Internet. I really had no previous detailed involvement or deep interest in the subject, but I thought I would visit the page anyway, purely out of curiosity.

It was the very extreme and blinkered nature of views expressed on that forum and on others I subsequently visited which compelled me to reply to some comments and to discuss the gun issue from the perspective of an outsider (I am a British citizen). It has to be said that not too many believers in gun control visit such pages and sites, so my opinions soon attracted opposition, and some of this was of such intense hostility and irrationality that I felt the need to defend my myself further.

I believe I used objective evidence, restraint and reason throughout, and yet the correspondence escalated until such time as I felt I had spent enough time standing alone against a torrent of abuse and (to my mind) really quite bizarre thinking on the subject of gun law. That's when I stopped writing there and decided to compile this web page for a hopefully more receptive and tolerant audience.

What follows are four key arguments of varying degrees of reasonableness put forward by the pro-gun lobby in the correspondence which I have read. These four key arguments will then be followed by some other points which were raised in discussion.

A semi-automatic AK-47. AK-47s have been used in mass killings in America. The fully automatic version is not legal in America, but semi-autiomatics can still be bought [1] | Source

World Firearm Statistics

Personal ownership of guns is higher in America than anywhere else in the world. There are 88 guns per 100 people in America - the next highest figure is for Yemen in the Middle East which has just 55 guns per 100 citizens. Indeed, the United States with under 5% of the world population has more than 35% of the world's civilian-owned guns [2]. See also the map which follows this section.

Coincidentally or not, Americans are on average 20 times more likely to be killed by gunshot than are citizens in the other leading developed countries of the world (most of Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan etc) in terms of the number of deaths per 100,000 people [3].

In terms of the total firearm homicides by country (regardless of population size), the USA ranks fourth in the world. South Africa has the greatest number of gun homicides [4].

1) The Gun Lobby - The Right To Use Armed Self Defence Against Criminals

In my previous state of naivety, I had assumed that the protection of the individual and their family against criminals, was the main argument in favour of the right to bear arms. That argument actually does make some sense. There are now an awful lot of guns out there, and whatever the folly of allowing such a situation to develop in the past, the fact is that if all law abiding citizens immediately gave up all their guns in the event of sweeping gun control measures, it's a safe bet that most criminals wouldn't follow suit. One could foresee a situation in which criminals armed with guns would feel quite free to carry out crime including burglary, shop theft etc without fear of encountering a citizen who is capable of defending himself. At least at the moment one could argue there is a 'balance of terror' between citizen and criminal.

However, this is a balance of terror which gives the United States by far the highest gun homicide rate in the developed world. So whilst there may well be a valid case for personal gun protection against criminals in today's society, the need to protect against criminals is certainly not an argument against the controlled and gradual removal of most arms from all people including criminals in a future society.

World Map of Civilian Gun Ownership

Countries in green have less than 5 guns per 100 people. Only one country has more than 75 guns per 100 people - the United States

The Glock 17 and its variants is a pistol used in self-defence and the most widely used law enforcement firearm in the world [5] | Source

2) The Gun Lobby - The Fear Of A 'Tyrannical' American Government

It has become clear that for many who believe in the right to bear arms, the enemy is not gun toting criminals; rather it is the Government of the United States itself. There seems to be a conviction among these people that if guns (the power of the people to defend themselves) are taken away then they will soon be subjected to tyrannical governmental oppression. The mere suggestion by Barack Obama of possible gun control has led to him being branded as a traitor, a tyrant and a dictator by many on gun lobby web pages.

Gordon from Georgia expresses this well:

'I do not see the reason to give up my weapons because a tyrant, and his band of merry tyrants want to take control of our country, and turn it into a dictatorship. --- 'While I feel deep regret that peoples lives have been taken (in mass shootings) I am far more feerful of what tyrants like obuma (Obama) will do to us if we cannot defend ourselves from his ilk'.

Rodney from Michigan thinks:

'They are not banning guns to lower crime, they just want to disarm the people so we can not protect ourselves from the government'.

Lynda (unknown state) worries that:

'Here, we speak openly without thought to reprisal. But will we be able to next year or the next? Banning guns is the first step. Freedom of assembly next. freedom of speech right after that.'

Rebecca from Kentucky is clear what she thinks about Barack Obama:

'Im not afraid to show my name and how I stand this is a free country and tell Obama and his gang we the people don't want him or his Muslim ideas go back to where you were born and it wasn't here!!!!!'

Gibson from Tennessee goes one stage further. It seems the Government aren't merely capitalising on mass shootings such as those in Newtown, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado - he believes they may actually be organising them:

'i personally believe this was all orchestrated by our government. the auora shooting the CT shooting. i think this is all a ploy to remove guns from citizens.. wouldnt be the first time a government has murdered its people in order to put forth laws'.

Finally, Charlotte from Texas draws parallels with other countries in the 20th century:

'in our century history has shown that the shortly after taking the guns from their citizens who were then defenseless, the governments rounded them up and executed them...ethnic cleansing....nice words for bloodd bath'.

The general idea on many of these forums is that a potentially evil Government lives in fear of people power, and gun control is some kind of devious plan to remove this power from the people before clamping down on all other rights. It's an idea which seems very alien and paranoid to those of us who live in other stable democracies.

In large numbers of democratic nations including my own, the right to carry guns has long been lost, and yet there is absolutely no sense that true fundamental rights have gone, or are likely to be lost in the future. In my country, fear of an armed citizenry is NOT the reason our Government respects democratic rights. Democratic rights are respected because over centuries we have as a nation learned the inherent value of this kind of society, and no one - Government or People, Army or Police - wants to throw away that society in favour of dictatorship. It isn't going to happen here in the UK, and I don't think it's going to happen in America if and when sensible gun laws are introduced. America, like us, is a free society with a free press and independent judiciary and police force, and I am sure the great majority in authority recognise the value of maintaining such a society, come what may.

The Colt M1911 A1 .45 pistol, a popular civilian gun both for recreational purposes and as a concealed carry weapon (6) | Source

3) The Gun Lobby - Fear Of Invasion By Foreign Nations

The most strange of these objections to gun control is the belief in the possibility of invasion by a foreign power. The following comments illustrate the thinking on this issue.

An unnamed writer suggests:

'our goverment is to poor to take on anybody if they decide to TAKE guns away and we cannot borrow money to have a war. that is when another country will come in and take our country when we are defenseless'.

Robert from Florida thinks likewise:

'If you disarm all the citizens, then somebody will try to invade us. Red Dawn is just a movie ,but it could happen if the government has its way'

Janell from Georgia is more specific:

'How much sicker does it have to be, when obummer (Obama) has us all hating each other, taxing us to death to send our money to his Muslim allies, raising our healthcare cost out of sight, denying care to old people, weakening our defense so his Muslim terrorists have a chance to destroy our country,etc., etc.'

How can people believe this? Do they really think that in all the years of the Cold War, it was guns in private ownership which kept the Russians at bay? It was the American army and the nuclear deterrent which stopped the Soviet Union from attacking America. Do they really think that across the world malevolent nations are just waiting to invade America, and it is guns in the hands of private citizens which are deterring them? Which countries do they think are currently being deterred by American citizens carrying guns? Iran? North Korea? Cuba? Or maybe it is those neighbours who share a dangerous land border with America - Mexico for example? Canada has the longest border - are they a threat? Nobody is capable of invading America today, but if weapons are deterring them, it is not citizens' weapons; it is powerful weapons in the hands of a professional army, navy and air force.

Smith and Wesson Model 60 .38 Revolver. Similar weapons to this one are the most common guns to be confiscated by American law enforcement authorities [7] | Source

4) The Gun Lobby - Respect For The 2nd Amendment

It seems therefore that some want to keep their guns for protection against criminals, some want to keep them for protection against the Government, and some want them for protection against foreign powers. But for many, one argument embraces all of these issues, and that is the argument based on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It does seem to many in the gun lobby that the 'right to bear arms' is not simply a matter of safety and security - it is an matter of almost sacred reverence for the Constitution, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This is seen by some as inviolable, and so any Government legislation which contravenes the 2nd Amendment, is deemed illegal in their eyes. The wording of the 2nd Amendment is as follows:

'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

Unfortunately, the precise intent behind the 2nd Amendment and its rather curious wording is unclear. The actions and writings of the 'Founding Fathers' only add to the uncertainty. Words such as these by Thomas Jefferson are often quoted in support of the gun lobby:

'The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government'

And yet George Washington's suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, and Jefferson's own actions such as the confiscation of firearms on Blennerhassett Island, West Virginia in 1807, are seen by some to conflict with this trust in people power [8]. Of course, whatever their judgement at the time of the writing of the Constitution, whether they would have expected that judgement to hold true in all circumstances for all eternity is another matter. Could they possibly have envisaged the nature of modern 21st century democratic society with a national army and police force. Is there a need for well-regulated militias to protect the security of a free state today? And if there isn't, is the right to bear arms still legitimate? From my reading of the 2nd Amendment, the second part of the statement is conditional on the first part.

But what is the judicial position? Prior to 2008, the judgement of the US Supreme Court in a case in 1939 appears to have held most sway. In this case (United States v Miller) the Court had ruled that ownership of a shotgun did not have reasonable applicability to the preservation of a well regulated State Militia - in other words, the 2nd Amendment only protects the State's collective authority to form militias, notthe individual citizen's right to bear arms [9]. However, in 2008 (District of Columbia v Heller) and again in 2010 (City of Chicago v McDonald) the Supreme Court gave rulings which decided the right to bear arms was an individual right of the citizen. Thus the pendulum had swung back in favour of the gun lobby's position [10]. These two recent rulings were only carried by a narrow 5:4 majority however, and all three rulings referred to very specific cases of gun ownership / control, so it is clear that interpretations of the 2nd Amendment still divide not just citizens, but also senior judges. In their minority view in the Heller case, four judges took the line which I have taken in an earlier comment in this section. Their way of expressing the apparently inextricable link between the need for state or government organised militias and the right to bear arms, was recorded thus:

'The "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".' [11]

The 'founding fathers' - for all the respect due to them - were only human beings, and they did live 200 years ago. Should the judgements of people who lived 200 years ago take precedence over the democratic laws of an elected government in the 21st century, if those laws are supported by the majority of the population, and if they are laws which can be amended or removed by future governments?

The Smith & Wesson Model 10 Revolver has been described in its various forms as 'the most successful handgun of all time'. | Source

Strange Analogies Of Weapons

Some forum writers like to ridicule suggestions for gun control by pointing out that all sorts of other objects can on occasion kill. They say 'should these also be banned?'

'Duke' from Arizona points out the dangers of bricks:

If I pick up a brick and hit you with it, I have 'assaulted' you with a 'weapon', thereby that brick, by definition, is an 'assault weapon'. Does that mean that in the name of public safety --- we need to outlaw those deadly 'assault bricks'?

Jonathon (unknown state) weighs in with drugs, cars and screwdrivers:

perscriptions and cars kill more people annually than guns. If someone got stabbed with a screw driver, would you push for registration and background checks for screwdriver purchasers?

Others use similar analogies to cell phones (used to trigger bombs), hotdogs (on which someone can choke) and aeroplanes. They fail to point out that all these other items have specific primary functions which give them a value to society (apart from maybe the hotdog?) other than to take life. Guns may be used for recreational purposes, but the primary function of most is to kill.

A Human Right? Whose Side Is God On?

Although many passionate lobbyists are keen to quote the words of 18th and 19th century politicians, some take the issue much further even than the 2nd Amendment.

Allan from Kansas says that invoking the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment is not necessary:

'The Right to Keep and BEAR Arms exists PRIOR to, and REGARDLESS of, The Constitution'.

And some take the argument about the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment to the ultimate conclusion. Not content with merely invoking the rights which were decreed by the mortal founding fathers, they go one better:

Willie from Kentucky says:

'Owning guns is a God given right'.

John (unknown state) agrees:

'In America we have always had the God given right to bear arm's, and most of us hold these freedoms very dear'.

I'm not sure which chapter or verse in the Bible indicates that God approves of guns, or how this interpretation is derived.

Comparing Countries

To be fair to the gun lobby, it is very difficult to compare circumstances in very different nations. The example of Japan's extraordinarily low gun crime figure is given opposite. It must however be pointed out that this is only partly due to strict gun control. A very high crime clear up rate helps reduce violent crime. There is also a cultural difference which makes the Japanese much more tolerant both of reduced personal privacy and of 'intrusive' police rights of search - rights which may be unacceptable in the West. Nations do have to decide on their own priorities in their own circumstances.

Switzerland is sometimes raised as an example of a country with very high personal gun ownership, and yet a very low homicide rate. There are reasons for this - in Switzerland professional military service is very limited, and the people are expected to serve in a conscript or 'militia' style army and are permitted to keep their own Government distributed weapons at home. In these respects, the Swiss model is perhaps more similar to the America of 200 years ago, and less comparable to America today, or indeed to most other democracies.

It is obvious that relationships between gun law and crime are complicated as cultural and historic factors have to be taken into account, but it also seems true that as a general rule, more gun murders can be equated with more guns freely available in society.

Strange Views On The Rest Of The World

Some gun lobbyists clearly are very mistrustful of their own Government and State, and have an extremely low opinion of the politicians they elect to govern America. And yet they seem to have an even lower opinion of other nations, believing that countries which have gun control are living without basic rights under the strong arm of political masters - masters who can do whatever they wish because the people lack the fire power to resist.

Kurt from Florida suggests that we in Britain have lost both a right to own guns and also freedom of speech:

'The simple fact that we placed this provision to bear arms as the second amendment to our Constitution, right next to Freedom of Speech, both of which your country (UK) doesn't really have or has direct control over,'

I wasn't aware that in my country I couldn't speak freely, or was in any imminent danger of losing the right to do so!

Jim from Texas made a comment which makes me wonder if he's talking about the same country I live in. Only a tiny minority of people in Britain have ever possessed guns, and I've never met anyone who bemoans the fact that we don't have this kind of personal protection today. And yet according to Jim:

'Now the people in the UK resent that they had to give up their guns and they are telling us AmericanS to NOT GIVE UP OUR GUNS'.

Ron from South Carolina paints another picture of the UK which I do not recognise:

'I've seen the cops in England and most of them actually do carry concealed weapons every day of the week. Because they don't openly carry like the cops in the US, people have fallen for the false idea that they are unarmed'.

That is simply not true. Policemen in Britain do not routinely carry guns. Tourists may see guns, because the places they are most likely to be carried is at airports, and possibly at tourist hotspots for obvious reasons of security against terrorists.

Of course there are also views on other countries. Cheno (unknown state) takes the poor Japanese to task. Apparently in the absence of guns, they are all killing each other with swords :

'japan took the guns away they use sords to kill people with now'.

Again, a quite untrue statement. Japan not only placed very stringent restrictions on private ownership of guns a long time ago. They also placed similar restrictions on the private ownership of swords. As far as gun control and gun related homicide is concerned, Japanese statistics are astonishing. Gun crime is virtually non-existent. In 2008, in America there were more than 12,000 murders involving guns, and 587 people killed by accidental gun fire. In that same year, 11 gun homicides occurred in Japan - a big increase from 2006 when just 2 people in the whole country were killed by guns! [12] One must be clear - there are other factors at work here too, associated with culture and law enforcement methods. These have been briefly mentioned in the section titled 'Comparing Countries'. Even so, the Japanese figures are remarkable.

If there is one message I can give - as a non-American - it is that most people in stable democracies throughout the world, and certainly here in Britain and in most of Europe, do not feel oppressed, enslaved, lacking in basic freedoms, or anything else because of our lack of guns. I can say what I like about our Government and I can say what I like about the Queen of England. I have rights under the law, and I do not fear that a tyrannical Government is about to take away my rights just because I lack the power to rise up in armed rebellion against them.

1973 Colt AR-15 SP1. The AR-15 is one of the most popular semi-automatic rifles, first offered to the civilian market in 1963. An AR-15 was used in the Newtown massacre, and in the Aurora Colorado Movie Theatre shooting [13][14] | Source

Comparing the American Government and the Nazi Party of 1930s Germany

The favourite foreign target of the gun lobby posts however is not Britain or Japan, but Germany. Not Germany today, but Nazi Germany. A popular theme is a likening of gun control in America to gun control measures introduced by Adolf Hitler in 1938.

LJ from New York says:

'The Powers that be just want full control and they do not care about our rights or our safety. This is all about Power over us. Look at Germany's Nazi History and thenLook at America since 9/11 it is scary how close they Parallel each other!'

Bruce from Colorado, in reference to Diane Feinstein - a senator noted for advocating gun control - follows up on the Nazi theme:

'This woman and others like her want to turn our country into another nazi germany, wake up people, do you want another Hitler ran country or do you want to be free?'

Keith from Wyoming thinks likewise:

'Taking away our guns will lead to something like the German people got in the 1930s. With out weapons we will be like sheep!'

The truth is very different. After the Great War, very stringent gun control measures including confiscation of all firearms, were put in place in Germany, and remained so for many years, not least as a way of preventing radical extremists (either Fascists or Communists) from seizing power through force of arms [15]. Power could only be achieved through the ballot box, as indeed it eventually was by Adolf Hitler. Gun control measures were relaxed somewhat from 1928 though strict licensing remained throughout the 1930s. Subsequently Hitler brought to an end fundamental freedoms such as the right to free speech and democratic election, but this was long before any additional gun control measures were introduced in1938. When those measures were introduced they actually relaxed licensing restrictions for most Germans. It was only certain minorities - notably Jews - who had further restrictions placed upon the right to bear arms. However, there is no way in which these groups (who traditionally had rarely owned guns anyway) could have used private arms to withstand the Nazis at this stage when persecution was already far advanced under a ruthless regime.

If gun measures are introduced in America it is purely and simply to reduce the high loss of life from firearm abuse in the country. That was not the reason for gun control in Germany under the Nazis. To compare the two situations as though they are alike is offensive, not only to those who support gun control for compassionate reasons in America, but also because it trivialises the suffering of Jews and all opponents of German Nazism in the 1930s and 40s. To suggest that Obama and his government are as evil in intent as Hitler is a sick failure to recognise the true nature of evil which once existed in German politics, but which does not exist in American politics today.

Articles revealing the nature of Nazi gun laws are included in references [15][16][17].

My Views On Gun Law

I will express my views on how best to proceed, although I know some feel I have no business to do so. I speak from a different perspective, and I do believe that people in any country may well have something to contribute from their own experiences. Americans are certainly free to say what they like about my country and others because no nation, after all, is ever perfect. Anyway, for what it's worth, these are my views on the future.

I cannot believe that as a result of the 2nd Amendment, firearms in every house should be a right enshrined for all eternity. However, looking at it rationally, an immediate ban on all weapons would clearly leave citizens very vulnerable as households give up their guns whilst criminals retain and hide theirs. So I would suggest a gradual and phased elimination of certain gun types from general circulation over many years. I would also suggest background checks, the immediate licensing of all guns, and a restriction to just one or two guns per household. In conjunction with this any convicted criminal should of course have their guns confiscated, and their licenses revoked, I also believe that any criminal caught in possession of a gun whilst committing a crime - even if they do not fire the gun - should have their sentence at least doubled from what it would otherwise have been. This would be automatic. After release, any offenders should face re-imprisonment if they are once again caught in possession of any unlicensed firearms. It goes without saying that stringent border controls and very severe penalties for gun trafficking are also necessary.

Can Anyone Speak In This Debate?

When pro-gun lobbyists first heard my comments, those who thought I was American told me I should go and live in another country without guns. And those who knew I was British told me I had no right to a say. Either way, they didn't want to listen to anyone with a differing point of view. But should I have a say? I hope you will allow me to for three reasons:

1) Some will say that as a Brit, I have limited understanding of constitutional rights which protect the right to bear arms, and therefore no valid opinion. I would say that even in the USA there is dispute over the exact intentions of the founding fathers. What I do have is the experience of living in a society without guns or a written constitution, and therefore I have a valid opinion as to how life can be freely lived without weapons. I hope that is of interest.

2) Some may well say that as I have not lived in a firearm-owning society I cannot understand the deep feelings of ordinary Americans on this issue. I would say that in Britain I can speak from an objective standpoint as I have nothing to personally gain or lose.

3) Some would simply say that no foreigner has any right to 'interfere' in American internal affairs. I would say that if no foreigner is entitled to talk about American internal affairs, then on that basis, no American - as a foreigner - would have a right to make comment on the internal affairs of say, Iran or North Korea. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and in the free world, a right to express it. Whether anyone listens, is of course, equally a matter of free choice.

Glock 26 | Source

Intolerance Of Opinions From Other Countries

Paul from California says:

'your foreign opinion is completely worthless in the discussion of MY rights and has now been noted and discarded in the garbage where all foreign opinion on this topic belong.....'

Corey from Utah doesn't care to hear foreign viewpoints either:

'I love how all these retards who dont live in the u.s. have an opinion on how our country should be run. Guess what? we dont care what you think. Thats why we chose to live here and not in your country'.

Responsible Ownership

George (unknown state) describes his gun cabinet and is clearly is ready for a fight with Government officers, or for several dozen burglars - whichever comes first:

'I got mine STUFFED FULL! 12 gun safe with 18 long guns + numerous sidearms. Cant get another one in no how'.

However, others, feel a gun cabinet is the wrong solution.

Bernie from California prefers to have guns readily accessible:

'Sorry, but a locked up gun doesn nothing to stop bad guys. Mine are all over the house'

David from Texas feels likewise. I can't help feeling he would have been more at home in the Wild West:

'what good is a gun you have for protection if you cant get the drop on the other guy first?'

Abuse Of Dissenting And Alternative Views

As a person, I am quite sensitive to criticism. However, I have to say that I have been mildly amused by some of the abuse which has come my way over this issue.

Thomas from Massachusettes tells me to:

'Smarten up, open your mind and shut your mouth and you might learn something...... Get informed before you spew your BS....'

Presumably Thomas thinks he has an open mind, yet doesn't need to listen to other opinions?

Cheno (unknown state) says to me in capitals:

'YOU MAKE ME FREEKIN SICK YOU CAN SET THIER AND TELL ME THIER IS NO GUN VILANCE THIER OR NOBODY KILLING ANYBODY WELL YOU ARE FULL OF SHI?'

Never before have I been told I'm 'an idiot' or a 'retard' so often in such a short space of time as I have in my visits to these pro-gun forums! Never before have I been told so often that my views are irrelevent and I should shut up and go away. It seems there is no desire to listen to an alternative idea. But sometimes there seems to be a confusion of intent - one pleasant fellow told me that he 'respects my right to express my opinion', but then at the end of his comment he said I should 'p**s off!' I'm not quite sure how I could do both. Seriously, even though I had sufficient self-belief not to be hurt by such extreme attitudes, some of my friends actually felt the need to advise me of the potential danger of provoking such people. I must admit to feeling relieved that an ocean separates me from some of those who write on this subject.

AR-15 semi-automatic rifles | Source

Open Declarations Of Intent To Murder

We now come to the key reason above all other reasons for the writing of this page. Without this reason, I would not have developed the interest to write anything on the subject because proposed American gun legislation does not directly affect me. But people's lives do. People can believe what they wish about the 2nd Amendment or their own Government, or about other governments, or about the freedoms or lack of freedoms enjoyed by those who live in countries without guns. But one aspect of this issue really needs to be raised. Reading the comments on gun lobby pages reveals a frightening element - the blatant claim by people who profess to be innocent and law abiding, that they are prepared to take the lives of anyone who attempts to confiscate their weapons, even - presumably - if that person is unarmed. The defence they offer is that it is legitimate to use their guns to oppose any 'unconstitutional' and therefore 'illegal' gun control law. These are just a few of the frightening comments I've seen:

Scott (unknown state) promises:

'I Pledge to never disarm, and in particular, to never surrender my military pattern, semi-automatic rifles (and full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them), regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts'.

Paul from California says:

'I'm keeping my guns and I will use them on anyone who tries to take them'.

Dave who is from Pennsylvania clearly sets out what he intends to do to anyone who might come for his guns:

'not leting the stormtroopers in to get them gonna make a pile of dead storm troopers'.

William from Florida threatens:

'If they want them ,I think we should give them(the 'gun grabbers' or authorities) our bullets first at a HIGH velocity, and repeat till they are all gone '.

Ricky from Nevada says:

'If you want my guns you will have to forcibly take them, there will be blood'

Chase from Virginia foresees violence ahead:

'there would be no way to "confiscate" all the AW's (assault weapons) without 1) taking away the right of freedom from search without warrant and 2) losing hundreds, possibly thousands, of cops to armed citizens. They are turning us law-abiding citizens into criminals to further their own agendas'.

James from Tennessee also reckons there's going to be a bloodbath:

'If they tried to take away our guns by going door to door the war that would insue would make the first civil war look like a paintball match'.

And I think Deanna from Kansas takes the prize here, referring to her 'arsenal' and enlisting the aid of her children:

It's easy to dismiss these comments as mere bravado, the posturings of people who when it comes to the crunch, will obey the law of the land. I hope that is the case, but most of these comments have received support, and the core posts which provoke these various comments receive approval from many thousands. All countries have their extremists, but in most democracies the extremists are not armed to the teeth with guns. If just a few dozen of these extremists react in the manner they threaten to any attempt to take their weapons, then a bloodbath will indeed result.

The gun in the hand is an iconic image which many feel is a part of American culture | Source

A Positive Note Of Hope

I would like to add a positive note. I had hoped even on the passionately pro-gun forums that people would engage in sensible discussion. But too often, as I say I have found the level of debate uncompromising to say the least. One person I began a conversation with was Laura from Ohio. My first responses from Laura seemed typical. She took the line that as a non-US citizen my opinions were irrelevant. But at least she wasn't abusive. We argued in several posts over various issues - the distinction between 'democracy' and 'constitutional republic' and the indivisibility of rights in the Constitution among others. However after one more long defiant comment arguing against my views she surprised me by ending with the following:

'I am enjoying this discussion with you. It's very obvious you are intelligent. I am listening to what you are saying & I appreciate the civility of our conversation'.

Leaving aside the 'intelligent' bit (though I liked that!), this was by far the nicest comment I had received in any of my exchanges. I reciprocated with an appreciative thank you, for which she was grateful. A few more exchanges occurred over the next few days, progressively becoming more tolerant of each other's opinion, and even finding some common ground. When it came time for me to give up these verbal skirmishes we ended with an exchange of best wishes, and acceptance that even strong disagreement can be debated in a civil manner with mutual respect.

Civility, respect and tolerance go hand in hand, and if indeed it is possible for two people with such diammetrically opposed opinions to discuss with tolerance, then perhaps there is at least a glimmer of hope for the future of America on this issue.

Hunting and sport shooting are considered legitimate activities popular in America, but they are not the reason for gun ownership pushed by the gun lobby sites. Nor are they an argument for the stockpiling of arsenals in peoples' houses | Source

My Conclusions And Wishes

I repeat my comments the top of this page. I write this article for one reason only.

My target is not really the right to bear arms - even though I make clear my viewpoint on this. It is for Americans to decide on that issue.

Nor is my target those in America who hold genuine concerns for their safety in a society where so many criminals are armed, and where it is reasonable to believe that ownership of personal guns is essential for protection. There are cogent pro-gun arguments.

My purpose in writing is that minority who indulge in a grotesque distortion of reason which I believe I have seen in some who write on this subject. I write because I worry about extreme and violent opposition to the mere possibility of some gun control from those who openly express their intention to use lethal force to protect what they see as their 'inviolable' rights. I write because whatever one's views on gun law, I believe all decent people in America have to stand against such threats to the due process of law and order. Perhaps the threats are merely bravado. Perhaps, if and when the time comes, such people who utter these threats will fall into line and obey the law. But there is a minority - hopefully a tiny minority - who hold a viewpoint which is frightening for what it seems to say about their attitude to democracy and rule of law.

I like America and most aspects of the American way of life. And I am one of those who regard America as having been a force for great good in the world. But as far as gun control is concerned, I fear for America in the future. If gun control is introduced - and I believe that it must be - then it must be handled with great care and wisdom, with strength of conviction yet also with understanding. If things are handled badly and if some of the more extreme views expressed on this page are to be believed, then there is the possibility of a bloodbath. I truly hope it doesn't come to that for the sake of all the many Americans I respect, and the beautiful country they live in.

Whatever the personal views of Americans who read this, I trust and hope that this will remain a rare sight which none will ever have to face | Source

Copyright

Please feel free to quote limited text from this article, on condition that an active link back to this page is included

All My Other Pages ...

I have written articles on many subjects including science and history, politics and philosophy, film reviews and travel guides, as well as poems and stories. All can be accessed by clicking on my name at the top of this page

I'd Love to Hear Your Comments. Constructive Opinions, Including Contrary Views, Are Welcome, but Please Be Aware That Abusive Comments May Have to Be Deleted

No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

sending

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

2 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStarr; I think I have discussed assault statistics further back in the Comments section here, but the UK has broader definitions than America, so a much wider range of crimes are included in the assault stats, including those in which no physical injury is caused. As a result comparisons such as this are misleading.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

2 years agofrom Essex, UK

Arthur Russ; Thanks Arthur. Your impressions of walking in the city in the UK tallies with my own, and I love the videos. The 'granny' one is quite funny, but reflects that even when armed with sledgehammers, criminals don't carry with them quite the same aura of fear, that a gun evokes. As for Fox News, independent fact checkers have consistently demonstrated bias in their reporting, but too many conservatives in America seem happy to accept what they or even more ridiculous channels like Breitbart and Infowars state on issues such as this.

WillStarr

2 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

The statistic to which I was referring, Arthur, is on page 2:

UK Assault victims 2.8%

Ranked 2nd. 2 times more than United States

US Assault victims 1.2%

Ranked 9th.

However, I so agree that both countries enjoy relatively safe streets despite the hype that 'blood runs in American streets', because it does not.

Over 90% of gun deaths in the US are suicides or drug gangs and criminals killing one another, and almost all of those drug gangs are minority members, a demographic that is minimal in the UK.

Arthur Russ

2 years agofrom England

WillStarr, I concur with Greensleeves (with reference to walking the city back streets at night). I’m a small weakling who’s never been in a fight in the whole of my life; yet I’ve always felt quite safe in Britain walking city back streets at night.

Thanks for the link, although looking at the stats on it, all the figures indicate the USA to be the more violent than the UK; obviously you spotted something in one of the figures that I missed. Anyway, apart from not being able to trust everything you read on the Internet. I give Birmingham as a prime example of how misleading the web can be; specifically because that’s the English city Fox News specifically mentioned in their false claim as being a ‘No Go’ Zone.

Before I took early retirement I used to frequently visit Birmingham on business (because we had one of our Offices there). On occasions when I stayed there overnight, or stayed the week I would book into one of the cheap hotels in the less well-off areas of the city. Then I’d pop out on my own during the evening, exploring the back streets for a good chip shop or café, and then onto find a nice small local pub tucked away somewhere in the back streets, well away from the hustle and bustle of the High Street. Birmingham is from my personal experiences a lively and friendly city; and perfectly safe day and night.

Also, London was another city specifically mentioned by Fox news as having no go zones. However, it’s only two hours’ drive from where we live, and because we have friends and relatives there, we frequently visit London; plus, before I retired I use to stay in London on business.

As with Birmingham I know London well, and when staying there I quite happy walk the streets at night, with no fear of trouble.

To give an insight into how crime in England compares with the USA, this video says it all:-

WillStarr; I guess Will it depends on how one defines 'crisis'. To an extent it may surprise you that I agree with you in as much as I tend to define a 'crisis' as being either a short-term situation (such as an earthquake) or a rapidly worsening situation (such as terrorist incidents in France in the past two years). I'm not sure if I have used the word 'crisis' at all in this gun-control article, but I would probably prefer to describe the 30,000 plus Americans who die every year from guns (more than 10,000 in homicides) as an unnecessary national 'tragedy'.

I have walked on main streets and rural streets in America in the daytime without any feeling of danger, and would do so again, but as you know I would dispute your general comparison about safety, particularly when it comes to night time, city back streets, and also domestic burglaries (the subject of some of my recent correspondence here).

I may comment on your article in due course, but only if I can find a way to do so without beginning a protracted discussion :)

Arthur Russ

2 years agofrom England

Thanks Credence2, I read your article with interest; it certainly does seem to be a big problem that needs highlighting.

I agree with you, we also thought the Doomsday Preppers in the USA TV series ridiculous, which made it amusing to watch, and therefore entertaining e.g. comedy is often based on people making fools of themselves.

WillStarr

2 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

There is no gun crisis in America. Our streets are as safe or safer to walk than the UK's streets. There is a suicide crisis and a minority drug gang crisis, but there is no gun crisis:

Credence2; Thank you Credence. I've just read that report and will comment on it later. If the report is accurate then it is indeed absurd how people can literally take the law into their own hands, on occasion almost with impunity. I had once thought that America had left the Wild West far behind, but in some peoples' minds, apparently it has not. I know that the majority in America (like yourself) are thoughtful and rational on this subject, and have heard many very perceptive discussions on American TV. But no amount of rationality will convince some.

Credence2

2 years agofrom Florida (Space Coast)

Hello, Greensleeves and Arthur.

You want to know how absurd all of this can become, check out the situation that took place in Texas a few years ago.

Second of all that prepper's program from the USA is ridiculous. People really think that they can live independent of the environment, storing water, food and maybe oxygen indefinitely in the face of a world rendered toxic, or in defense against some sort of Mad Max World? I doubt it.

Jack Burton; I think I understand the point you're making Jack - you prefer the 'certainty' of being able to defend yourself against an intruder rather than taking the chance that they are not armed. The fact is that it remains a level playing field - it's just that the 'stakes' are lower in the UK. In America both sides may well be armed with guns, and confrontation is more likely to result in death. In the UK, neither side will be armed with guns, and confrontation very rarely develops in that way.

The 'certainty' - proved I believe by numerous gun stats - is that gun owners are more likely - not less - to suffer death or injury from guns (both criminal and accidental) than non-gun owners either in the USA or the UK.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

2 years agofrom Essex, UK

Arthur Russ; Thank you for that refreshing comment Arthur, and particularly for the observation - which should be common sense but which apparently isn't - that in a relatively gun-free society, it is simply less necessary for private law-abiding citizens to be armed, because the criminals themselves are less likely to be armed with guns. House thefts in the UK very rarely result in violence even when the burglar is surprised in the act. They are not armed with guns, so they flee rather than fight.

The second part of your comment does reflect a difference between British society and at least the more extreme gun advocates in American society. There the primary objective among some 'patriots' in a 'Doomsday' scenario, seems to be looking after oneself, rather than American society. In the UK, even though less fervent in our patriotism, the emphasis seems to be more on society and community.

Thanks again, Alun

Jack Burton

2 years agofrom The Midwest

"they almost certainly"

It is not a matter of the chance you are taking but the stakes you are playing for. If you wish, both personally and culturally, to depend upon the "almost" for your life and well-being of your family then go for it.

Arthur Russ

2 years agofrom England

Great article; as a Brit, when I engage in this subject with Americans I quite naturally get the same widespread views and arguments from them as you do. The latest revelation (from a law abiding American) being her disbelief that killing an intruder in your home in Britain would be manslaughter (maximum sentence being life in prison) and not self-defence; the British Law being that you can only use ‘reasonable’ force in self-defence, and shooting someone is not reasonable force.

Once I’d explained to her that in Britain if you disturb an intruder they almost certainly would want to make a quick exit rather than be caught, then she did understand that aspect of the Cultural differences between the UK and the USA e.g. in America an intruder would most likely shoot you because most people own guns; which seems to be a very much ‘shoot first and ask questions later mentality’.

So, although I’m sure most Americans would disagree with me, I do feel that if American’s could get away from their gun culture there wouldn’t be such violence.

Last year I and my wife watched a series of ‘Doomsday Preppers’ on TV e.g. where Americans stash away food and water in secret locations in the event of a national or worldwide collapse of society due to some natural or manmade disaster. What amazed us was that in every single episode, the American family featured put guns as the number one priority, to defend their limited resources from their fellow citizens.

In contrast in the short series of British ‘Doomsday Preppers’ on TV at about the same time, the attitude of each British Doomsday Prepper featured (each week) would be to make contact with other survivors as a survival strategy on the basis of ‘strength in numbers’ e.g. to share resources, skills and chores.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

2 years agofrom Essex, UK

Atruepatriot; Oh dear; I don't really wish to keep going over the same old points that I've already covered in other posts - especially in view of the fact that most of those points are NOT truly relevant to this article which is primarily about a potentially violent response to limited controls on gun ownership, but here goes. I'll take your points in turn and answer them as briefly as possible.

1) Yes I'm a foreigner. Do you think that denies me the right to an opinion about another country's affairs? When human lives are at stake? I trust you never express opinions about any other country - Iran? N.Korea? Russia? I would have thought that coming from a nation which prides itself on free speech, you would welcome an exchange of opinions, or is it only opinions you agree with that you welcome? A foreign point of view takes a different perspective with experience of different approaches to society and should therefore be welcomed - just as I welcome American opinions about Britain (expressed on an appropriate web page I hasten to add).

2) A 'right that shall not be infringed' you say - as you know, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is much disputed even by Supreme Court judges. Many would point to the linking of that right to the need to form a well-regulated militia, and many others would point out that the right to bear arms is not absolute and unrestricted. Even Antonin Scalia - not exactly noted as a liberal on these issues - pointed out in the Heller case:

'Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.'

3) I believe the evidence and facts that are lacking may be on your part. There is no overwhelming evidence that guns - in private ownership - keep people free. I could list dozens of countries (almost all established democracies) where the 'people' are not armed to anything like the same extent, and yet have far less fear of tyranny and dictatorship than many Americans do.

4) Sorry you feel 'slightly less intelligent' for having read my article. Is that because you feel any opinion which differs from yours is unintelligent? Or is it because you realised how little you know? :)

5) It is simply not true to say that laws which forbid the carrying of arms only disarm the innocent, and encourage homicides. There are plenty of countries which prove the opposite. If what you say were true, then America would have at least a comparably low homicide rate to other stable democracies, and not one which far exceeds that of most other stable democracies. Oh but wait - you're quoting someone who lived in an entirely different world 200 years ago. Incidentally Jefferson was not the originator of that quote. That honour goes to Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria.

6) Your next point is similar in tone and also comes from 200 years ago. What applied in George Washington's day when America had an untamed frontier and a newly installed and very insecure government without an army to defend it, or a police force to ensure the rule of law, does not necessarily apply in the 21st century. In most other countries, we know that.

You talk about my viewpoint as being 'almost intellectually insulting'. I hope I haven't escalated your level of rudeness with my reply. Thank you for your comment on this article 'truepatriot'! :)

Atruepatriot

2 years ago

I am always astonished at foreigners who want to put their opinion into the arena about an American right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Always also equally astonished at the complete lack of historical data proving the fact that weapons keep people free. Coming from a person from Britain is almost intellectually insulting on their lack of remembrance. A huge article full of humongous gaps in facts. I feel slightly less intelligent for having read such an article.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good... A free people ought to be armed. - George Washington

Stay tied to your confidence, that can only be tied with ignorance, in government.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

3 years agofrom Essex, UK

Tadd; I think that is unfair of you Tadd. There is no intention to use bad grammar as a weapon against gun rights arguments. The article is about the potential for an escalation of violence in a society in which some who have access to abundant, lethal weaponry express very extreme sentiments. That I think is made clear in the opening paragraphs and in the concluding paragraphs.

I explained in the article exactly why I gave direct quotes. If I had altered them for grammar I would have lessened the impact, and if I had changed words or phrases I may have been accused of manipulating the quotes to suit my own agenda. By leaving them as they are, they are absolutely authentic. But plenty of the quotes above are perfectly grammatical. The selectivity practised on my part was not based on grammar - it was based on extremeness of viewpoint, intolerance and obvious inaccuracy. Nothing else.

Of course as you say there are many people with coherent, reasoned and peaceful views on gun ownership, and some have commented below. But this article is not primarily about the pros and cons of gun control. It is about the extreme and violently expressed opposition by some to any suggestion of gun control measures being introduced. It does not matter whether people are educated - what matters is the violence and intolerance expressed, and the worry of what might happen if gun control measures are introduced. That is what dictated my choice of quotes.

Tadd

3 years ago

It seems that the purpose of this article is to shame the segment of Americans who do not have access to quality education. I have been in the same message boards you have, I know that the quotes you have posted are accurate. I also know that there are many gun bearing Americans who know how to use a keyboard and have some grammar skills. They are out there, they often have expert knowledge of firearms as well. Be nice, use quotes from them. Don't quote undereducated people just to bolster your argument.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

3 years agofrom Essex, UK

Jennifer Mugrage; Hi Jennifer. Re-Internet gun rights advocates, thanks for commenting on that. Don't worry, I know what Internet forums are like since writing on this issue and taking an interest in other political issues! In fact I even wrote a hub about standards in Internet commenting, including the point that such forums cause many people to behave abysmally online in a way they wouldn't dream of doing in real life.

And I know the picture is never quite as bad as that portrayed in Internet forums and on TV news bulletins. When I last visited the U.S about 20 years ago, before I ever started writing or took an interest in gun law, I never saw any guns except on policemen, and never worried about it. I am aware that in normal everyday life, it isn't a constant fear. Indeed, whether or not you believe in gun rights, it does say something good about society in general that the majority of Americans and American households do not feel the need to own guns today, much less carry them. I do hope that feeling remains in the majority.

If and when I come to America again, I promise I won't have too many qualms about personal safety! Mind you, if I'm in a private house, I may not open the door after dark, and I would avoid city backstreets at night :) Cheers again, Alun

Jennifer Mugrage

3 years ago

Hey, Greensleeves, hope you don't mind if I babble on a bit more. (We ARE on Soapboxie, after all!)

I do agree that we in the US are a society not just in decline, but possibly in disintegration. It is very frightening, whether or not you own a gun. Of course, the causes - and solutions - are way too long to take on in a comment, worthy of a Hub (or a book) unto themselves.

It is also true that every time there is a mass shooting, it presents a strong prima facie case against gun rights. I think that may be one reason you don't have a lot of gun control advocates commenting on this Hub. They feel their case is pretty simple and straightforward, and it has been made. Gun rights advocates know they are on the defensive in the argument, they know their case is a lot more complex, so they have a lot more to say.

I wanted to address the equally interesting question you raise in your Hub, namely, are all these Internet gun rights advocates really as frightening as their posts would lead you to believe? I.e., are they likely to come after you with those guns if they don' t like your opinion?

I do understand why you are happy to be on that side of the pond. :-) Still, based on what I have seen, I would say No.

I have never heard a news story where a gun rights advocate hunted down and shot a gun control advocate. Nor have a ever heard of a gun-rights mob, riot, or even demonstration taking place. Perhaps these things have happened, but I think not, because I think they would be pretty hot news and would get a lot of coverage.

Aggressively going after their political foes, or even forming a mob, is not the M.O. of most legal gun owners. They tend to be independent types. They prefer to withdraw to their property and wish to be left alone. When the folks you quoted write about answering with bullets, I believe they have in mind some kind of apocalyptic scenario in which society is breaking down, and an armed representative of the government shows up at their property, demanding their guns (and possibly their children). That scenario actually has happened a few times, and it's tragic too ... but insulting and irrational as they may sound on line, I think you are safe from these folks.

Also, of course, there are many legal gun owners who are reasonable people but don't have the time or interest to write about it online.

A much more likely tragedy to happen when guns are in the mix is violence against a friend, partner, or loved one. That is a real danger.

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. Just thought you would like to hear the perspective of someone who lives here, on the fairly important question of whether you have endangered yourself by taking place in these discussions.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

3 years agofrom Essex, UK

Jennifer Mugrage; Thanks Jennifer for taking the time to read, and for your considered response to this. Much appreciated.

I have come to recognise that there is a very different historical perspective in America to that of some other countries including mine, and the necessity of guns in past times was very clear. But the role of guns today - type, number, availability, open carry etc etc - is more problematic. And whilst it's true that human nature doesn't easily change even after 200 years, human society - including the establishment of a well organised police force, without a need for a 'well regulated militia' - has changed, or should have changed.

Some of what you say I'd very much agree with and some bits I wouldn't - I think you can guess which bits :) - but mentioning the police does raise one big worry which has really arisen since I wrote this article. 'Black Lives Matter', shootings BY police, shootings OF police, attacks on minorities such as the Orlando gay nightclub, and most of all Islamist terrorism, have all been in the news recently possibly fueled by increasing polarisation in society. Of course there's two ways of looking at that. Some would argue that such tensions only increase the need for personal armed protection. But others would fear that in an escalating climate of fear and possible prejudice, a society replete with guns faces a possible risk of violence in the future on a scale unimagined. Events only this week in France have tragically shown what carnage can be caused with just a speeding truck. What would a handful of terrorists (Islamic or anyone else with a grudge) armed with easily available semi-automatics have done?

There are no easy answers and no quick solutions, but I fear for an escalation of major atrocities involving guns, if not an escalation of conventional gun crime. As for rational discussion, Jennifer, I've had a few issues on this hub, but of course nothing like you'd find on some of the lobby forums - and for that I'm grateful! :)

Jennifer Mugrage

3 years agofrom Columbus, Ohio

Great article. I don't have time to read all the comments, so pardon me if I repeat any points that have already been made.

I do believe in the right to bear arms, but obviously I don't endorse all the nonsensical arguments and insults that were thrown at you.

Some people apparently haven't gotten the memo that, when arguing on the Internet, the first person to compare his opponent[s] to Hitler, loses.

You obviously are very well-read on history, so I probably won't convince you with any historical arguments. But please do keep in mind the American historical perspective.

We had a revolution, which was preceded by the mother country keeping a standing army in our towns. They were better organized and better armed than we were. Hence, fear of the government and the deep-seated belief that when a government suddenly wants to take away its citizens' weapons, this is because a power move is planned.

Both before and after the revolution, we were in an environment where a gun was a basic tool needed for survival. Read the Little House books by Laura Ingalls ... Laura's family would have starved many times if Pa had not had his gun.

This is no longer true in modern times, of course, but there is the little problem of the Constitution. When written, it was intended to outline basic, unchanging principles for civil society, which were based on what were taken to be unchanging truths about human nature. If you start saying, "That was written 200 years ago, they couldn't have foreseen ... that is irrelevant to ..." ... alarm bells start going off. I gather you already discussed this at some length with Laura from Ohio. Sure, it is possible to have a nice, democratic society with no right to bear arms in a country that never had a revolution, a constitution, or a right to bear arms enshrined in that constitution. But the presence of these things does make a big difference.

About having an "arsenal." I myself don't own a gun and don't know how to shoot. But I do know enough to understand that there is NOTHING more dangerous than owning a gun and NOT being trained in how to use it. People who own guns legally, practice - at firing ranges, during hunting season. It is a skill, a craft and a hobby. So, though they don't need to have enough to supply a small army, it's not unreasonable for them to have several different guns. Like other hobbyists, one thing gun owners enjoy is being knowledgeable and proficient with a variety of makes & models.

Finally, I don't share your belief that even a gradual approach would ever enable us to confiscate guns from criminals.

Best to you, Greensleeves. Hope that, with this Hub, you are finding the rational discussion you sought - and mostly failed to find - on those other Internet pages.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

3 years agofrom Essex, UK

stereomike83; Thanks very much for that, stereomike. There's possibly no political issue which so defines America as gun control with its associated themes of historic constitutional rights, state v federal authority, personal safety etc. It is, as you say, an issue which totally perplexes most in the UK, as gun rights just don't matter to anyone here except maybe for a few hobbyists or farm owners. Although we all criticise our UK government, be it Labour or Conservative, we must feel thankful that as a society we seem generally free of this fear of gun-carrying criminals or governmental oppression.

I think I've heard all the arguments now, and I feel all the gun lobby arguments can be answered. A total immediate ban would not be on the cards - probably no one proposes that, with so many guns in the hands of criminals, but the argument that guns in society should not be gradually reduced, in tandem with other safeguards being put in place, seems beyond comprehension to me.

It is a sensitive issue - this hub has received far more comments than any of my other articles. But at least on HubPages the debate tends to be more civilised than one sees on the gun lobby forums I visited for the purposes of this article! :) Thanks again for your contribution. Alun

stereomike83

3 years agofrom UK

This was a fascinating, well researched read. As a fellow Brit I have often been perplexed by the strong views that gun control has in the states. Whilst I appreciate that many hold the constitution dear, the extreme views that you see replicated in some of the comments here perplex me but I have never dared weigh in with an opinion of fear of not being informed enough to defend my point of view. You have therefore taken a great leap to write this.

I remember seeing a comment after one (of the many) mass shootings claim that in the UK that we are just as at risk of mass stabbings or poisonings but I have to admit I don't live in fear of this eventuality on a daily basis. It is a real shame that events like Dunblane that live so strong in our memory here are an all too common occurrence across the Atlantic. I also do struggle with the argument that you need the guns to defend yourself against intruders and the government. Surely the ease of gaining a gun means the chances of your home intruder being armed are much higher as a result? And with the government, it is strange to me that it feels that on the whole Americans are much more politically involved yet at the same time many live in fear of their elected leaders (although with some of those currently running for president, perhaps that fear is well founded!!)

I do agree with your point that if rules were ever implemented they would have to be gradual to prevent anarchy but as an outsider looking in, I can't see how the country can continue in this vein. That said, perhaps had I grown up in a country where gun ownership is so commonplace, maybe I would feel differently.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

3 years agofrom Essex, UK

Ja Tu; Thanks. I'm guessing you didn't read the section 'Strange Analogies Of Weapons', which gives the answer? Cars are a necessary part of what makes our society work, and the primary function of a car is not to kill. The primary function of a gun (apart maybe from the sporting fraternity) is to kill. And it's debatable whether privately owned guns should be a necessity in society.

Ja Tu

3 years ago

Greensleeves Hubs, since automobile kill many, many times more people a year than guns do I'm curious why you decided to write your piece on guns and not automobile confiscation?

MelindaJGH

3 years ago

Gang control should complement gun control. Good point!

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

3 years agofrom Essex, UK

MelindaJGH; Thanks. I agree absolutely. The way Switzerland administers and permits ownership of firearms is very different to the USA, and cannot be held as comparable when it comes to gun related homicides.

But even in Switzerland, much vaunted for its low overall level of gun crime, the rate of all deaths by guns is relatively high - 7th among more than 30 European countries in one listing (mainly suicides and accidental shootings) - and there's no evidence that that rate would be translated into a similar rate of non-firearms related deaths, if there was increased gun control there. Cheers, Alun

MelindaJGH

3 years ago

Simply, as with Switzerland, it makes sense for those serving honorably as police or in a national militia to house arms, as needed, but for the masses to own guns invites violence.

H C Palting

4 years agofrom East Coast

Things are much different here in the US and there are very large numbers of law abiding and sane people here who will never give up their right to bear arms. Count me among them. In addition, when I was a young girl my father shot an armed intruder, stopping him in his tracks. I'm HIGHLY thankful for guns and respect your view as well. I just hope that you never find yourself staring down the barrel without equal protection.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

4 years agofrom Essex, UK

Express10; Thanks. You'll appreciate Express10, that I would find it difficult to agree with that comment. I don't believe anybody overlooks the obvious fact that criminals don't abide by laws. But a range of gun laws can and have made it much more difficult for criminals to access guns in other countries.

Nor, I suspect, are across the board bans being suggested by anybody (though perhaps that does depend on your definition of 'across the board'.)

H C Palting

4 years agofrom East Coast

It is sad that criminals do not abide by laws. This fact is often overlooked or flat out ignored. More saddening (and also maddening) is the fact that the knee jerk reaction is always across the board bans and gun control measures for law ABIDING and sane citizens.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

4 years agofrom Essex, UK

Sorry Will, the second link I gave to the London Evening Standard seems to fail. Presumably the URL has changed. It reported favourable crime and public safety statistics in London. But the Washington Post link is viable.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

4 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStarr; Interesting links you've found, though of course some judgements are relative. What seems like a major gun haul to UK commenters, may be less than one gun enthusiast can stockpile in their own home in America.

It is easy to be selective in finding web pages to suit an argument, and at least one statistic in those links I'm sure is wrong (38 firearms murders in one year in London? - that sounds more like the total for the whole of the UK). Nevertheless, here are a couple of alternative links:

But as far as radicals / terrorists are concerned, since 2000 there has been one major atrocity - the transport bombings of 2005. Apart from that there have been two murders, neither of which was carried out with a gun. We are, of course, not complacent. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism means that there will probably be further attacks, and they may well involve guns. But if so, I think the limited availability of guns here will make it far easier for British security forces to prevent it becoming an epidemic.

WillStarr

4 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

BTW, Alun, 55% of last year's UK gun murders were committed by blacks, and their victims were also black. It's interesting to note that the US has an almost identical statistic, with just over half of all gun murders involving black on black.

Jack Burton; Jack, I see now where I went wrong. I should have accepted your first one-liner without comment, to save myself having to respond to your subsequent essays :)

Picking up on one or two points in your most recent comment, you refer to the very hypothetical risks of a breakdown of Government in America, and seemingly prefer in that circumstance the option of power in the hands of armed civilians to power in the hands of the military. I think you contradict yourself. In one paragraph you reject my claim that anarchy would result from armed civilian power as being ‘nonsense’. However, immediately before that you give an example you seemingly approve of, of someone who has the only working generator in the block, after a major earthquake :

‘I am much more concerned about protecting it from those who would rather take it by force than to have planned for their own considerations. What the other millions of armed citizens do is up to them.’

If that doesn’t sound like a recipe for anarchy, I don’t know what does.

And when you suggest that in America, new drivers are taught something different to what happens in other nations - ie: to keep an eye on the other drivers and properly interpret their actions - well I think actually all driving schools probably regard that as a good idea. Of course no one would describe such wariness as ‘fear and paranoia‘, but I see it as a false analogy to liken a natural watchfulness for danger in every day situations to a desire for people to be armed and on guard against a breakdown of government. That’s like comparing a molehill to a mountain.

Before that comment you gave a link to a national UK newspaper article about a pub singer being arrested for racism after complaints about performing the song ‘Kung Fu Fighting’. You cite this as an example of gross restrictions on free speech in the UK. I actually seriously suspect that there was much more to this than meets the eye, because of course that would be a ridiculous reason for arrest. Indeed the very fact that such an arrest received national coverage is indicative of how unusual and silly it would be. Perhaps if the UK press had more gun crime to report on, they wouldn’t have space for such a story?

In your comment previous to that, and being as brief as possible, some of your arguments (athletes trying to run fast and students trying to attain high grades) are total non-sequiturs. Those examples are about personal achievement goals which impact on no one else. They are not freedom issues or social issues which impact on everyone else.

The arguments you make counter to mine about the freedoms to do what you want in the privacy of your own home, only serve to emphasise the validity of my point - that when it comes to individual freedom, there is always a line to be drawn. As I said, it’s just a question of where the line should be drawn. For many activities it is right that the line drawn should be concerned with what is done in private as opposed to what is done in public, because what is done in private has no bearing on the world outside. With guns it is rather different. Proliferation of guns - in the home or outside - unfortunately does lead in America to consequences for the rest of society.

You also point out that you ‘have complete freedom to say or write anything we choose’. Of course no one can physically stop you saying or writing something, but knowledge of the legal position may deter you. Actual legality or criminality of an individual can only be determined after the act in a court of law - as in ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Unfortunately by that stage the damage has been done.

Finally in that comment, you say it is illegal for a convicted criminal to own a gun. That may well be right, but we would both agree that is hardly sufficient to stop gun crime. I guess you would not wish to go further, by introducing additional measures. I think you should.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

4 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStarr; Oh Will, I hope one day we can find something on the issue of gun control which we can agree on :)

As far as Iran is concerned, I don't think many experts - politicians, military strategists, Middle East specialists - seriously think that Iran will pose any direct nuclear threat to countries like the UK or America, even if they do one day acquire nuclear weapons. As for home-bred radicals, yes, there are too many of those in the UK, and it's asinine that we've allowed that position to develop. Terrorist attacks are likely - I'm just glad that extremists in our country find it as difficult as everyone else to get hold of guns.

Jack Burton

4 years agofrom The Midwest

“Established, stable democracies like those in Western Europe and North America?”

Here in America we have the phrase, “moving the goalposts.” You just became guilty of that.

“ It just doesn’t happen Jack in such democracies except in the most extreme of circumstances.”

“ in those circumstances, I’d rather rely on the military taking short term control to stabilize the situation. “

Yes, because a society where only the authorities have firearms is such a blessed, peaceful society. I normally don’t recommend fiction as a means of education but have you ever read Larry Niven’s “Lucifer's Hammer” book?

“Do you really think that a multitude of militias of ordinary citizens - some official state militias and some unofficial rag-tag self-styled local armies, plus individuals unconnected to any group, each with their own conflicting ideals and ambitions, without discipline, proper training or a central authority - is a better solution?”

When I have the only working gas electric generator in my block after the Seattle Fault slips into the Pacific and destroys the West Coast I am much more concerned about protecting it from those who would rather take it by force than to have planned for their own considerations. What the other millions of armed citizens do is up to them.

“ You’re talking about something far worse than martial law, something worse than civil war - what you’d have is total lawless anarchy, with everyone armed to the teeth and fighting for their own personal goals.”

That’s nonsense but you have a good future ahead of yourself writing Mad Max sequels.

“I do feel sad that so many in America seem to live in fear, not just of criminals armed with guns, but of their own government and presumably their military and their police forces becoming tyrannical.”

And I much prefer the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

“ We in most other established democracies are nor armed to protect ourselves against our government, and yet we’ve never felt that vulnerable to persecution or infringement of the liberties we do cherish. Maybe you think that we’re wrong, but at least generations live out our lives without that level of fear and paranoia.”

Here in America we do something slightly different from much of the other countries in the way we teach driving skills. We are taught and practice what is called “defensive driving”, which means that we keep an eye on the other drivers and it is our responsibility to properly interpret their actions to best avoid an accident with them. By the end of the first year of driving it becomes second nature and no one even thinks much about it. I have never, ever, not once, heard anyone describe that way of driving as “fear and paranoia.” Just prudent expectations and a knowledge that a moments warning is often more than sufficient to avoid problems. Yet, when that very same understanding is applied to politics and the way we are governed we have people such as green totally miss the concept and have a grave misunderstanding of the role of a free citizen as opposed to being a subject of the state.

“Your earlier comment essentially suggesting that freedom is indivisible and cannot be compromised, is fine as an idealistic comment, but I think it is not entirely realistic.”

When an athlete wants to run a 4 minute mile they don’t set their goal at practice to run a 4 minute 30 second mile. When a student wants to earn a superior grade on a test they don’t study as if a mediocre grade is sufficient. When someone wants the freest society possible they don’t set their eyes on a society where “freedom” is confused with “government permission.”

“You say ‘Freedom is freedom. It is not to be balanced against the evils that people do’. But if we are to live as a society of people under a common law, then there do have to be compromises.”

Yes… my freedom stops at the point of your nose… and no, you cannot hit my fist with your nose and then claim that I somehow am not playing fair.

“All freedoms have limitations Jack. You must accept that.”

Ever hear of the concept of prior restraint? No… I didn’t think you did.

“You are free to drive a car - but only after you have proved you’re competent to do so. Otherwise you’re denied the freedom.”

Seeing as to how you are not from the States I’ll cut you some slack on this one but no, if you are on your own property you do not need to prove anything to anyone, have a license, or have the motor vehicle registered to drive it. It’s only if you take it into the public arena that you have to abide by government rules concerning a vehicle. Hmmmm… that is JUST the same way it is in most states with firearms.

“You are free to walk the streets, but you’re not free to do so naked, nor free to walk through someone else’s private property. “

But you ARE free to walk thru your own home as nekkid as you want, with as many people as you want, and stay that way for as long as you want. And of course you can walk thru anyone’s private property nekkid with their permission. Hmmmm… that is JUST the same way it is with firearms.

“You have freedom of speech, but no freedom to disclose matters of national security.”

Ever hear of the 1971 Supreme Court ruling on the Pentagon Papers? Might want to look it up. The one thing that you don’t quite grasp the concept of is that, yes, we have complete freedom to say or write anything we choose. There are no prior restraint muzzles or taping our fingers together to prevent it. If it is determined in a court of law AFTER THE FACT that we then broke the law by what we said or wrote we can be appropriately punished.

“ There is always a line which has to be drawn to protect society’s interests against the ‘freedoms’ of the individual.”

And what are you going to do about it when your government decides to draw that line far, far to close for you to agree with?

“ In America you have a freedom to own guns. As I indicated in the article, I wouldn’t suggest taking away that freedom in its entirety any time soon (too many guns currently exist in the hands of criminals for that to be sensible), but I would suggest there’s a line which can be drawn. Maybe you would too - if so, I guess we just differ in where we would draw that line.”

It is illegal for convicted criminals to own a gun, or even to be in the same room as one. It is illegal for those adjudicated mentally ill in the same way. Any other “line drawing:” you want to do changes a “right” into a “permission.” “Can I have some more, please” is not a phrase associated with our rights and our government.

WillStarr

4 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

Since many governments have become tyrannies in the recent past, is it not more reasonable to err on the side of caution than to take a position of blind trust in the same human nature that failed us in the past? That is not 'paranoia'. That's just common sense.

BTW, with Iran now set to develop nuclear weapons and buying the delivery systems, are you really safe? If your major cities are destroyed, who do you think will defend you if you are attacked by radicals? You have forgotten your history and the fact that the US hastily armed your Home Guard when an invasion by the Nazis appeared to be imminent.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

4 years agofrom Essex, UK

Jack Burton and WillStarr; You ask Jack, what are my options for action if the government I live under decides to take away the freedoms I feel strongly about. And you say you can name a dozen countries where that's happened. Really? Established, stable democracies like those in Western Europe and North America? Places where the great majority of the population, as well as all major parties and also the armed forces recognise the virtue of stable government and peaceful exchange of power? It just doesn’t happen Jack in such democracies except in the most extreme of circumstances.

Perhaps it might happen if some disaster on a truly cataclysmic scale were to lay waste to our societies, but even in those circumstances, I’d rather rely on the military taking short term control to stabilize the situation. Do you really think that a multitude of militias of ordinary citizens - some official state militias and some unofficial rag-tag self-styled local armies, plus individuals unconnected to any group, each with their own conflicting ideals and ambitions, without discipline, proper training or a central authority - is a better solution? You’re talking about something far worse than martial law, something worse than civil war - what you’d have is total lawless anarchy, with everyone armed to the teeth and fighting for their own personal goals.

I do feel sad that so many in America seem to live in fear, not just of criminals armed with guns, but of their own government and presumably their military and their police forces becoming tyrannical. We in most other established democracies are nor armed to protect ourselves against our government, and yet we’ve never felt that vulnerable to persecution or infringement of the liberties we do cherish. Maybe you think that we’re wrong, but at least generations live out our lives without that level of fear and paranoia.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

4 years agofrom Essex, UK

Jack Burton; Your earlier comment essentially suggesting that freedom is indivisible and cannot be compromised, is fine as an idealistic comment, but I think it is not entirely realistic. You say ‘Freedom is freedom. It is not to be balanced against the evils that people do’. But if we are to live as a society of people under a common law, then there do have to be compromises.

All freedoms have limitations Jack. You must accept that. You are free to drive a car - but only after you have proved you’re competent to do so. Otherwise you’re denied the freedom. You are free to walk the streets, but you’re not free to do so naked, nor free to walk through someone else’s private property. You have freedom of speech, but no freedom to disclose matters of national security. There is always a line which has to be drawn to protect society’s interests against the ‘freedoms’ of the individual. In America you have a freedom to own guns. As I indicated in the article, I wouldn’t suggest taking away that freedom in its entirety any time soon (too many guns currently exist in the hands of criminals for that to be sensible), but I would suggest there’s a line which can be drawn. Maybe you would too - if so, I guess we just differ in where we would draw that line.

" I have a very passionate, strong belief in freedom and would defend to the death the crucial freedoms of democratic government, equal legal rights and free speech"

Let's ask a very real and pertinent question. What, specifically and with detail, are your options for action if the government you live under decides for their own reason to take away or deny you those "freedoms" that you feel so strongly about?

And don't claim that it can't/won't happen. I can name you a dozen countries just in the 20th century whose citizens never expected they'd be living under a tyranny yet found that was the case as the years went by.

Jack Burton

4 years agofrom The Midwest

Reminds me of my favorite Bible verse in the Book of Genesis, when Able asks his brother, Cain, "Crikey, mate, where did you get that Glock?"

Let me quote from myself...

Freedom is freedom. It is not to be balanced against the evils that people do either purposefully or willfully. There is no tipping point, no level of unacceptable behavior by those who choose to live outside society's rules that counterbalance the concept of freedom. Once we begin to quantify freedom and parcel it out in part based upon some kind of social formula where the most fearful, the social deviants, the least apt among us have controlling interest in what we are allowed to do or not do then it is far from freedom and becomes instead merely privilege.

As Charles C. Cooke states it, "Does a preference for human liberty in an imperfect world yield unfortunate, even tragic outcomes from time to time? Indeed so. Should we give that preference up in consequence? Absolutely not."

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

4 years agofrom Essex, UK

Jack Burton; Thanks Jack. Given the subject matter of some of your hubs, I guess that 'put down' was about the gentlest I could expect from you:)

I would say my concept of freedom is not weak. Just different to yours. I have a very passionate, strong belief in freedom and would defend to the death the crucial freedoms of democratic government, equal legal rights and free speech, as would most people in free nations. But I think very few in almost any established democracy other than America would want to see a return to the days of common gun ownership. The freedom to own guns seems to most of us in the world and many in America to be very minor when set against the freedom to live in a society without fear of lethal weapons. Alun

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

4 years agofrom Essex, UK

chezchazz; Thank you for that recommendation about 'Smoke and Mirrors.

Jack Burton

4 years agofrom The Midwest

Alun has a very weak concept of freedom.

Chazz

4 years agofrom New York

Thanks for sharing your views. You might be interested in the book "Smoke and Mirrors: The hidden context of violence in schools and society" for a look at this and related issues. Although published in 2000, it has become even more timely.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

4 years agofrom Essex, UK

KawikaChann; Thanks Kawi. I know what you mean! I've come to appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. Although I like to debate against present gun law on practical grounds, I guess what turns gun ownership from being merely a matter of cold statistical debate into a source of great passion for some, is the sense of it as being a fundamental personal right enshrined in the constitution, and essential in order to defend freedom. In Britain, we just don't get that. Nobody worries about the threat of guns because virtually nobody has them, and nobody feels under threat from the government either. It's strange isn't it how two nations - so very similar in many areas of political thinking - have come to be so very different on that issue?

But I do agree very much with your last point. Thankfully, the great majority of people in either country, whatever their political views, are basically decent, and in a crisis would stand together with others - even those of diametrically opposed views. It's always a pleasure to hear from you Kawi!

Kawika Chann

4 years agofrom Northwest, Hawaii, Anykine place

Lol. Alun, now that's a fire starter!! I live a mile or two from a mall where there was a mass shooting - very terrible, very disturbing, and very frustrating. I can only credit God that my wife and daughter were not there, they had left the mall only a couple of hours before the shooting started.

The incident has had 'some' impact on my personal reasoning to conceal-carry, but it is not the whole reason behind it. Guns take lives, and it can just as well preserve them just the same.

Guns have a very profound effect on people - no matter the side you're on. I have met, or encountered most of the behavior types that have voiced off in your comments, and your report. From the cowboys (God love 'em) to the gun-control hyper activists. I love 'em all, it puts the checks and balances in play and forces everyone to pick a side in the end. It's just one of the things that makes this nation great.

We might not agree with each other, but most of the folks I know will help you out of a jam no matter what you stand for. Peace. Kawi.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

markjayharris; Many thanks Mark. I know from your article that we disagree on many issues re-gun control, but thanks for your comment and considerate approach, and your acceptance of my right as a foreigner to express a point of view on what may be considered a strictly American policy choice.

Incidentally the page you provided a link to seems not to exist now, though the error code at that URL does provide a further link to a new or revised page by you. Cheers, Alun

Mark Jay Harris

5 years agofrom Smithfield, Utah

A well thought-out and reasoned article. I can see by my placement in this posting that I'm coming to the party late. I believe you already commented on my article that discusses many similar ideas, albeit from an American point of view.

I can appreciate your concern. I haven't thought about our gun control laws and their impact (or the concern they might cause) to those from other countries. I appreciate you point of view.

A guest user Charles Norton just posted a comment here which I had to delete as it included an active advertising link to a gun store, Savannah River Armory. However, I'm happy to post the rest of the comment. Charles said:

'I think guns, though possibly dangerous, are very needed. The mass killings of people by gunmen are terrible, but it was not the gun that killed them, it was the person. If a law was set to get rid of guns, the criminals wouldn't abide by the law anyway. The best way to win a gun fight is with a gun. I think it is important for those who have guns to know how to properly use them and store them in a safe way.'

As you'd expect Charles, I do disagree. In brief I would answer:

1) Regarding mass killings, guns do kill people, in the sense that mass killings are far less 'practical' with other weapons. Without guns - even with disturbed serial killers - there would be far fewer mass killings.

2) The idea that criminals wouldn't get rid of their guns (voluntarily) is fair except that in other nations with strict gun laws there are far fewer crimes involving guns. They have less access to them and less reason to carry them.

3)'The best way to win a gun fight is with a gun'. I would argue that it is better to avoid having a gun fight by not having any guns.

I would of course agree with the final point about the need for safe storage and proper training, though recent cases such as the 9 year old girl who killed an instructor who was presumably qualified, show that domestic possession of guns is never likely to be totally safe.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

River; Hmmm...maybe you should read a few dictionary definitions before you criticise. My use of the term 'democracy' is in line with the word's common usage by all, including politicians and lexicographers - it is a generalised term for systems of government in which the people are freely involved in the election of an accountable government. Most people will understand that. Only semanticists and those with a political agenda do not.

This is an article about gun control, so the 'core premise' of the article is not democracy. If possible could comments be kept to the subject of gun control attitudes? Which other facts do you think are questionable?

River

5 years ago

Hmmm...maybe you should stick with travel and color, rather than writing about politics. Your opinion is valid, as all opinions are, but your facts are questionable. Example: your core premise is that we are living in democracies and democracy is on the rise. However, technically, there is no such thing as a true democracy on this earth, and there never has been. Fact. Sorry.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

Jodah; Many thanks John. As you say, the attitude of the more extreme pro-gunners in America - such as those who believe in 'open-carry' and those who think they need guns to protect against tyrannical government - seems incomprehensible to those of us who live in democracies without guns. I was aware of gun control introduced in Australia since that mass shooting, though not knowledgeable of all the details. Your last comment about 'not liking the Government yet not feeling in fear of them' is one with which I can identify fully. Too many in the gun lobby in America don't seem to understand the idea that a populace can be unarmed and yet still feel safe and free.

I've become very interested in this subject in recent years and statements issued by some in the gun lobby, are real eye-openers and quite scary. Fortunately there are plenty of rational Americans campaigning for gun control, but it seems that no matter how many incidents of homicide or accidental shootings occur, rationality still faces an uphill struggle.

Your comment is like a breath of fresh air which I am grateful to receive John. And thanks for the vote up. Appreciated. Alun

John Hansen

5 years agofrom Queensland Australia

Wow Greensleeves this is the first of your hubs I have read and boy did I choose a doozy. I did write a more detailed comment but it wasn't saved, so let me just say I agree with you totally. You presented the case for gun control in an intelligent and well explained manner, and your hub clearly displays the distorted thinking and psyche behind the gun lobby and it's members that you and I from different countries find it almost impossible to understand or change. Here in Australia gun control was introduced after a mass shooting in Port Arthur Tasmania in the early 90s..all automatic and semi-automatic fire arms were banned and people given an amnesty period to surrender their guns. Background checks were done and licences issued for the use of other firearms if their was a genuine reason to require them. We have had no mass shootings since. There are still some crime related shootings but they are isolated incidents with never more than one or two people shot. The majority of Australians feel safe and are glad we don't need to carry guns. I don't like our current Government but I am not in fear of them or feel the need to be armed to protect myself from their tyranny. This should be a Hub of the Day...voted up.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStarr; And yet Greece has a tiny 6% of babies born out of wedlock while Iceland has 64% born out of wedlock. And which has the higher homicide rate? Greece has five times the homicide rate of Iceland. Being born out of wedlock clearly doesn't necessarily lead to more crime. I'm not suggesting that either of these countries are comparable to America, and I'm certainly not saying that these stats should be used to advocate births out of wedlock - I'm merely pointing out that plucking stats out of the air does not tell the whole picture. Instead it gives a misleading picture. But that is the way in which proponents of a particular cause try to justify their position, because it is always possible to find some factor which sets one country apart from others and then to use that as evidence for, or an excuse for, their cause.

I'll accept that you are not racist Will, but we are treading on dangerous ground here, because it does seem that blame for crime is being apportioned according to racial distinctions. In any case, we are also straying too far from the central theme of this article which is the extreme and violent hostility of some in America to reasonable and moderate suggestions for limited gun control, so I think it's time to end this particular thread.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

"...are you saying that as a race, blacks are more violent than whites?"

I'm saying that statistically, they commit crimes at far higher rates than any other race. In the US, that's due to blacks having nearly 75% out of wedlock births and growing up without a loving father in the home. Most US prisoners of all races grew up without benefit of a father, including my own nephew.

The massive increase in black out of wedlock rates can be laid right at the feet of the US liberals who passed laws giving far more welfare to unwed mothers.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStarr; I don't intend to keep this line of argument going, for the reasons expressed in my previous two comments. But what you have just said needs clarification. Rather than merely condemning deprived communities of any race (which all nations have) or minority communities of any race (which all nations have) for violence, are you saying that as a race, blacks are more violent than whites?

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

Where the race was known in the US, whites (includes Hispanics) committed 45% of homicides. Blacks, who make up just over 12% of the population, committed 52% of the homicides.

Blacks in the UK make up just 2% of the population, so demographically, the US has over 6 times as many blacks.

The UK has just 2% black, but they make up over 14% of your prison population, so of course it's relevant.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

Will; So far you have contributed one sixth of the comments here, largely concerned with an argument for greater female safety from gun ownership, and the case that US homicide rates are largely down to Hispanics and blacks. Most of all you seem to want to make a USA v UK 'non-gun violence' comparison, as though a comparison of that kind excuses the high homicide rate in the U.S. In the future I think I will probably write a hub detailing all the most frequently argued points made in favour of guns including all these points. If so you could discuss all those points in reply to that hub.

But this hub is actually about the very extreme arguments of some gun enthusiasts and the murderous lengths to which some claim to be prepared to go to defy any legislation. That is what shocked me more than the merits of gun ownership itself, and that is why I wrote this hub. I would prefer to keep the comments section here as much as possible devoted to the main theme of the article in future, and whether those extreme opinions are justified.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStarr; I repeat, we seem to be going round in circles. You say comparing US/UK violence statistics is invalid unless its adjusted for demographics, which you then do. Yet you ignore the other adjustments required for comparison which have been mentioned by both ‘junkseller’ and myself. There are - as they say - lies, damned lies and statistics, and the only statistics which can easily be compared are those relating to the absolute and clear cut crime of homicide. And the stats on homicide are unarguable.

Re-demographics, all countries have different cultural make-ups; we in Britain have an increasingly large Moslem population, a significant black and Asian population, and a large recent influx of Eastern Europeans. Are you saying there is something inherently violent about blacks and Hispanics in America? That sounds a bit racist. If on the other hand you are saying that homicide and violence in America is caused by inner city deprivation which just happens to afflict these groups more, well lots of developed nations have inner city deprived areas without the homicide rate of America.

We have already established that violence is rare in both the UK and USA and in neither country is there much risk of being attacked in the street unless one frequents certain inner city localities, so I think perhaps we have done to death the violence stats comparisons?

But for anyone who wants them, here are a few more stats about America:

*More than 100 children are killed intentionally by gun fire every year.

*More than 500 children die each year as a result of all incidents involving firearms including accidental discharge.

*The equal playing field that women now enjoy means that many more women as well as men are victims of homicide, particularly domestic homicide in America - and guns increase the likelihood of domestic violence resulting in death by 12 times.

*Gun related deaths in general are highest in states which have a higher percentage of households owning firearms.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

Comparing US violence statistics to other countries is invalid unless it's adjusted for demographics. We have a large black and Hispanic population that countries like the UK simply do not have, and those two minorities alone account for nearly 70% of all crime in the US.

The UK has over twice the assault rate as the US, and if we factor out minority assault violence in the US and just compare white assault violence rates, the UK would be far more violent than the US.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStarr; Sadly we do seem to be going round in circles repeating the same arguments, as you imply in your comment. Certainly what we do as a society to reduce violence may not reduce crime, but it can reduce the death toll from crimes. That has been proven in countries which have strict gun control.

As for the continually repeated point about women, yes that's true. It does equalise men and women to an extent. It also escalates the risk to all. The fact remains that more women are killed in America by guns than are killed by all other violent methods in most other democratic nations. Indeed studies have indicated more - not less - deaths of women from firearms (including homicide deaths) in households that contain guns in the USA than in households that do not.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

"You're judging those conclusions based upon your perspective."

My perspective is reality. As long as man has been on the Earth, there have always been plenty of those who rob, rape, and kill. I don't think any amount of 'what can we do as a society to reduce violence' will have the slightest effect on the criminal mind bent on committing crime.

So again:

If we have a natural right to life (and I think we can agree that we all do), then it logically follows that we also have the right to defend that life (we are not expected by anyone to simply surrender and accept death when we are assaulted).

And if we have the right to defend that life, then it again logically follows that we also must have the right to the means of defending that life, and the one means of defense that makes us equal to anyone is the firearm. For instance, a woman is no match for a man...unless she is armed with a firearm. Then she's the equal to any man.

junkseller

5 years agofrom Michigan

Willstarr, your premise (right to life, right to defend oneself) is beginning from a specific starting point. Your starting point is essentially individualistic: one victim, one criminal alone on an island. From that starting point, your conclusion is logical.

However, it isn't the only starting point. It is just as easy to start from a broader view: what can we do as a group, what can we do as a society to reduce violence. That's a very different starting point and will likely have a very different conclusion. You're judging those conclusions based upon your perspective. To you, all you see is a victim being disarmed. To properly judge someone else's conclusion you have to evaluate it from their starting premise.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

Willstarr, you can believe all you want that the intent of gun control is some sort of attack on rights and liberties. There is no basis in reality for your belief. It is a pure myth, and you can't very well have a useful conversation on the issue if you continue to believe something about your opponent that just isn't true.

Then use the constitutional amendment process provided and repeal the Second Amendment. Either do it the right way or not at all.

junkseller

5 years agofrom Michigan

Willstarr and Mklow1, I couldn't have said it any better than Greensleeves, but would like to add that it is called "reasonable" because it is in fact reasonable. An assault weapons ban has broad and wide support. Passing or trying to pass legislation which matches the will of the citizenry is by definition reasonable.

Willstarr, you can believe all you want that the intent of gun control is some sort of attack on rights and liberties. There is no basis in reality for your belief. It is a pure myth, and you can't very well have a useful conversation on the issue if you continue to believe something about your opponent that just isn't true.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

If we have a natural right to life (and I think we can agree that we all do), then it logically follows that we also have the right to defend that life (we are not expected by anyone to simply surrender and accept death when we are assaulted).

And if we have the right to defend that life, then it again logically follows that we also must have the right to the means of defending that life, and the one means of defense that makes us equal to anyone is the firearm. For instance, a woman is no match for a man...unless she is armed with a firearm. Then she's the equal to any man.

If our politicians want to disarm the people for any reason, then let them do it the right way by repealing the Second Amendment, because incrementally disarming the people is indeed 'sneaky'.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStar (and also Mklow1); For once I can (almost) agree with your basic suggestion Will, though not with the inference you and Mklow1 draw.

Politics is the art of the possible and the practical. There is no value in going after goals which are unattainable - that applies in all nations where politicians depend on the support of the public, and it's right that it should.

No doubt some - though not the majority - who support an assault weapons ban, would also like ultimately to see a gun-free society. But they know that can't be achieved in the foreseeable future, so if you believe in the premise (I know you don't) that all gun types kill more people than they save, then it makes sense to try to remove any kinds that you can with the consent of society. You may not be able to remove them all today, but every change has to start somewhere.

There's nothing sinister or sneaky or undemocratic about this. In fact you should feel pleased. So many pro-gun lobbyists seem to think that the Obama administration is riding roughshod over their rights and behaving in a 'tyrannical fashion'. But this proves the opposite. Obama knows he could not pass sweeping gun control measures even if he wished to, because at present that would not be accepted by enough of the people. Any politician who proposes very limited gun control is behaving like a democratic politician who knows he has to carry a majority of the people with him. He is not behaving like a tyrant.

And, yes in answer to the question you pose: if the population accepts that an 'assault weapon' ban is reasonable, then a later handgun ban COULD also be reasonable - if the population accepts it as such. That's how democracy works.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

junkseller said: "Why go after them? Two reasons I think. One is they are go-afterable,"

"So basically an assault weapons ban is like a Trojan Horse. It just gets them into the door until eventually citizens become desensitized to the thought of gun control completely. It is just a foot-in-the-door so to speak. Interesting."

You nailed it. All rights are lost incrementally...one little bite at a time. That's the purpose of euphemistically calling it 'reasonable regulations'. If the population accepts that an 'assault weapon' ban is reasonable, then couldn't a later handgun ban also be 'reasonable'?

But that won't fly in America just yet, because we are still Americans and we still cherish our rights and independence. Maybe after our schools indoctrinate the next generation or two.

Mklow1

5 years ago

junkseller said: "Why go after them? Two reasons I think. One is they are go-afterable,"

So basically an assault weapons ban is like a Trojan Horse. It just gets them into the door until eventually citizens become desensitized to the thought of gun control completely. It is just a foot-in-the-door so to speak. Interesting.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

Around 30,000 Americans die each year from firearms. Of those, about 17,000, or nearly 60% are suicides. Of the remaining, about 12,000 are homicides. Nearly 70% of the homicides are inner city gang killings.

I have never seen any sort of 'gun control' that would have the slightest effect on suicides or homicides since only the law abiding obey such laws. One person claimed that registration would stop crime, but didn't explain how that would work.

If you are not suicidal, not a criminal, not a cop, don't live in a ghetto, and don't associate with criminals, your chances of being shot in America are near zero.

junkseller

5 years agofrom Michigan

Mklow1, I totally said that wrong. Willstarr specifically made mention of knives killing more people than "assault rifles". I meant to be agreeing. Yes, they also kill more than all rifles as you mention (or at least for rifles identified).

Why go after them? Two reasons I think. One is they are go-afterable, since they have less apparent practicality (people don't need to have them) and two, despite their lower body count, their bodycounts have been extraordinarily impactful. I don' know if I'm right, or that I would agree with going after them for those reasons, but that would be my assessment.

I am not a particular proponent of the assault weapon ban so a better answer would have to come from someone else.

Mklow1

5 years ago

junkseller said:"WillStarr, Yes more people are killed by assault rifles than knives"

Wrong. As a matter of fact, knives kill twice as many people as rifles (all rifles, not just assault rifles), shotguns, and a criteria listed as other types. So if the purpose of gun control is to save lives, then why ban assault rifles, which is involved in a fraction of a percent of murders and not go after the big killer; handguns? Even if they ban assault rifles, there would be almost no drop in the murder rate, so why do it?

WillStarr; Registering guns will not stop crime. It will help reduce gun crime. As already stated, statistics about crime in our two nations are suspect, but of course if one stays away from inner cities and gangs at night, then there is little risk in the streets of either country. For the record I have never been assaulted, and I don't know anybody who has. I hope you haven't either.

But what's more, I have absolutely no fear of meeting a mugger or a burglar armed with a gun. In that respect, our societies seem quite different.

junkseller

5 years agofrom Michigan

WillStarr, Yes more people are killed by assault rifles than knives (or fists and feet, for that matter), but as Greensleeves noted those are very different things. We can't ban knives. We can ban assault rifles. It doesn't have to be the biggest killer to be concerned about it. Although, I'm not sure anyone was talking only about assault weapons. Guns, in totality, kill far more than knives do, and the topic is gun control, and for that there are thousands of different policy options.

As for politicians and crisis talk, I actually agree with you, but it is hardly an issue only of liberal politicians and gun control. Look at the rhetoric that comes from the right about debt and entitlements, or Muslim, commie Obama trying to kill Christianity, etc. Pointing that out isn't to make this a right vs left battle, it is simply to suggest that such rhetoric is fairly ubiquitous in our country at the moment and that really is our fault. We shouldn't elect drama queens (or pay attention to them on the news) and when they pull such routines we shouldn't give them any notice, but we do, all the time. I roll my eyes sometimes, too, at some of this stuff that goes on regarding gun control, but that doesn't mean I can't ignore that stuff and engage it reasonably and rationally.

And you're still way off about your claim of motivation. The mythos of gun grandeur is a self-delusion of gun-owners. The left is not afraid of your guns or have any interest in disarming Americans for political reasons. It is just a silly notion. Actually it is the exact same sort of 'crisis' talk you seem to be against (Obama is coming for your guns so he can enslave us). Ridiculous.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

Believing that registering guns will stop crime is like believing that registering cars has stopped drunk driving.

Gun control advocates claim there's a crisis, but when 99.99% of America's guns will never be used in a crime, and 99.99+% of Americans will never be shot, there is no gun crisis in America. In fact, we are far safer walking down American streets that you are in the UK, where you are over twice as likely to be assaulted.

Most gun deaths are suicides, and of the rest, most are inner city gangs killing one another. That's a problem, but it is not a crisis.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStarr; It seems you did not take in what I wrote, even though you copied it. I clearly made a distinction between sport and hunting on the one hand, and other gun ownership which has one function only. There is nothing inaccurate in that statement. And if they are used for hunting or sport, what's the problem with registration and background checks?

We're back to misleading statistics again. There are estimated to be 300 million guns in America, and about 30,000 gun related deaths. By your percentage figure, only 6000 guns are involved in these 30,000 deaths. Really? Either way, you miss the point. It is not the percentage of guns which matters. In a previous comment 'csa' says he has over 40 guns (why???) - presumably 0% of those have been used in crime. What matters is that in a society with free access to guns, gun availability to all - criminals today and future criminals - is increased. Whether it is 0.002% of guns or 90% of guns, the fact remains they are responsible for 30,000 deaths, and more than 10,000 homicides.

My arguments are not specious Will. Try again.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

"WillStarr; Well here we are again my old sparring partner. The distinction between guns and knives is that with the exception of sport and hunting, guns have one function - to kill.

Then perhaps you can explain why 99.998% of the guns owned by Americans never kill anyone? They are used most often for the sport of target shooting.

It's a specious argument. Try again.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

WillStarr; Well here we are again my old sparring partner. The distinction between guns and knives is that with the exception of sport and hunting, guns have one function - to kill. Knives have many practical functions, and when it does come to killing, they are not nearly so efficient. Having said that, knives should indeed not be carried on the streets - just as guns should not.

I cannot speak on the American government's social policies, and certainly there may be work required in that area to reduce the inclination of youth to get involved in crime. What is your solution to that problem? All social issues are immensely complicated and difficult to solve, and they should be considered alongside - not instead of - the sensible desire to control guns (a desire, not because the government is frightened of guns, but because every ordinary citizen should be frightened of guns).

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

Mklow1; I'm not sure anyone is suggesting immediate illegality of all guns are they? That may be a utopian idea which almost exists in some nations - free nations. In most others there is very restricted ownership of licensed guns. America is, I think, almost unique among free and stable democracies in its approach to gun ownership and clearly it would be impractical to make all guns illegal in the foreseeable future. The moderate suggestion is for some categories to be illegal, for others to require registering, and for background checks on owners. That is the moderate approach, which almost everyone interested in gun control suggests.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

"Willstarr, so how many people dying from guns and/or being victims of crimes involving guns does it take for it matter enough to be interested in policy solutions?"

Over four times as many people in the US are murdered using knives as by using so-called 'assault rifles', but there's no call for knife control because politicians are not afraid of knives.

"Don't call it a crisis if you don't want to, but are you really going to stand by saying there is no issue at all?"

I never said it was not an issue. I said it was not a crisis. Politicians claim it's a crisis so that they can pass laws disarming Americans.

The fact that politicians do nothing about the fatherless youth who are the ones committing the gun crimes tells us that it's actually political.

Mklow1

5 years ago

So junkseller, the reason for gun control is to save lives? Do you believe then that we should make all guns illegal?

junkseller

5 years agofrom Michigan

Willstarr, so how many people dying from guns and/or being victims of crimes involving guns does it take for it matter enough to be interested in policy solutions?

Don't call it a crisis if you don't want to, but are you really going to stand by saying there is no issue at all?

The notion that this is political really makes little sense. It is the right, not the left, who buys into the narrative of the armed citizen being the defender against tyranny. I don't think many politicians on the left believe the ARMED citizen is more of a danger than the unarmed citizen. In fact, I'd say, the left in general believes, rightfully so, that peaceful protest has far more power than a bunch of angry citizens with guns.

The spirit of gun control is about reducing gun violence and gun deaths.

WillStarr

5 years agofrom Phoenix, Arizona

"I would like to ask all the people that post here; In its core, what is the purpose of Gun Control?"

Since there's actually no gun crisis in America (99.97% of Americans will not be killed by a firearm), the purpose in disarming Americans is political in nature. Angry, but unarmed people are no real danger to politicians.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

Mklwo1; Thanks for your visit and comment. I guess the question you ask is indeed at the heart of the debate, though I suspect people on opposing sides will have different ideas on the purpose of gun control, and on whether control achieves the intended purpose.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

junk seller; I totally agree. There are indeed big differences between Britain and America in the way in which statistics are recorded, and a far greater range of crimes in the UK are described as ‘violent’, including many in which no physical injury occurs. As one leading criminologist James Alan Fox says:

‘Once you get away from clearly defined terms like homicides, all kinds of problems come in. You have to take comparisons not just with a grain of salt but with the entire shaker.’

Another point is that in many studies homicides are listed separately to violent, non-lethal crime. They are often omitted from statistical surveys concerned with violent crime. As a greater number of violent crimes in America result in death (because of guns) than in the UK, this factor also clouds any comparisons between the two nations.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

csa; Thanks csa for your thoughts. Your statistics are interesting, though can be debated. Some of the issues you raise are addressed by ‘junkseller’, and I’ll mention them in a reply to his comment.

The truth is that both the UK and America have too much violent crime. However, levels of violent crime have in recent decades decreased in both nations despite widely differing gun policies. So can we at least agree that neither possession nor absence of guns seems to be significant in reducing the level of violent crime? The only question is whether possession or absence has an effect on levels of violent death.

As far as your second point is concerned, one of the problems in the US is that criminals can easily transport guns into cities regardless of the local laws. So city gun laws may not be so effective. The solution however is surely is not for every innocent citizen in those cities to be armed more, but rather for it to be made more difficult for everyone including criminals to obtain and carry guns nationwide? Cities all have their own widely differing circumstances and incidences of crime (and that includes in the UK where gun laws are uniform across the nation). Perhaps State homicide figures are a more reliable guide? According to one set of figures, 7 of the 10 states with the strongest gun laws are also 7 of the 10 states with the lowest gun death rates. http://smartgunlaws.org/2013-state-scorecard-why-g...

As far as the statement ‘bad people will always find a way to do evil acts’ is concerned, that is true, but those evil acts are much less likely to lead to death in the absence of guns. The total murder rate in countries with strong gun laws tends to be much lower, because crimes involving knives and other weapons are much less likely to lead to death.

Finally none of these stats including your reference to a hammer killing removes one other glaring problem with guns. In the USA at least 500 and maybe more than 1000 deaths occur every year as a result of accidents involving guns, including 100s of children. The number of accidental hammer deaths is somewhat lower.

Mklow1

5 years ago

Very thorough Hub. I would like to ask all the people that post here; In its core, what is the purpose of Gun Control?

junkseller

5 years agofrom Michigan

csa, if you are in law enforcement than you know that comparing crime statistics is difficult if not impossible. The claims that Britain has a higher crime rate than the US do not account for the differences in reporting crime. For violent crimes, Britain counts all crimes against persons, which includes simple assaults and any sexual offenses, while the US only counts (for those categories) aggravated assaults and forcible rapes. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...

A deeper analysis would also have to include reporting information (how likely people are to report, or not report, a crime). It could vary widely between nations, and even within regions.

If you look only at homicide rates, the US is at 4.7 and the UK at 1.2, but even with that 'simple' statistic I am not sure they are comparing apples to apples.

It is interesting the cities you mention (and don't mention). I live near Detroit. I'm unaware of any particularly restrictive gun regulations there or in the state. I don't know about Memphis, but Tennessee isn't known for gun regulations either. Does Memphis have some specific regulations? As for New York, their crime rates are actually pretty good. Chicago with restrictive gun regulations isn't doing so well. California has restrictive gun regulations. Oakland is doing poorly. San Jose and San Diego are doing well.

And then cities you just left out: St. Louis (now top 5 in many crime statistics), New Orleans, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Miami, Kansas City, Indianapolis...

Texas doesn't have strict gun regulations, yet Dallas and Houston both have higher crime rates in almost every category than does New York. Clearly there is no simple pattern here.

csa

5 years ago

Per capita, the UK has a much, much higher rate of violent crime thand the US. Yes, we do have more gun crime, but you are much more likely to be harmed in the old country rather than the United States. How is getting beat or stabbed to death morally superior to getting shot? In the US, there is a direct correlation between violent crime and gun control. The more gun control laws, the more violence. The most gun restrictive cities in America are Detroit, Chicago, NY and DC, but they have some of the highest gun related crime rates. If you eliminate the cities of Detroit, Memphis (also highly restricted) and Chicago, the US would be statistically one of the safest countries in the world. Even with 80,000,000 guns. The true weapon is the criminal mind. Bad people will always find a way to do evil acts. No law will change that. Here is an example. I've been involed in law enforcement for a while now. Last year we arrested a gentlemen for a home-made gun. After he served his time, he beat a man to death with a hammer. It's the criminal, not the tool that's the problem. I personally own over 40 guns of various types and not a single one has killed a fellow human being. 99.9995% of legal gun owners in the US will ever commit a gun related crime.

Walt Kienia

5 years agofrom Hartford, Connecticut

"It does great credit to the commenter who has the grace to set aside their own opposing beliefs on the subject, in assessing the article."

We'll said.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

5 years agofrom Essex, UK

CalebSparks; It's always nice to receive accolades or support from someone who agrees with your point of view. But it is perhaps even more rewarding to receive a generous comment from someone who disagrees with many of the opinions expressed in an article, yet respects the intentions and thought behind the article.

It does great credit to the commenter who has the grace to set aside their own opposing beliefs on the subject, in assessing the article.

Whatever your personal views on gun control which I suspect are well-considered, I very much appreciate your words and support. Alun

CalebSparks

5 years ago

This hub is a very interesting read, Greensleeves. Though I must disagree with many of your premises and conclusions, I nevertheless found this hub well-constructed and mentally stimulating. I plan to read more of your writings. Thanks.

AUTHOR

Greensleeves Hubs

6 years agofrom Essex, UK

jlboogades; Thank you. I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there. There is a difference between accepting or tolerating a person's right to a point of view, and approving of it. On most controversial issues there are pros and cons to each side and individuals should accept the right of anyone to hold opposing views whilst not necessarily approving of those views. Society itself must form judgements which respect certain basic rights such as the right to free thought and speech and the right to have a say in the governance of the nation, though even on such basic issues, debate remains (should freedom of speech include freedom to verbally abuse or racially insult? Should having a say in government involve having a direct say in every issue, or does it mean delegating responsibility to your elected officials or their appointed experts?) Whether the right to self defence through the ownership of guns is a basic right and how the extent of that right should be interpreted remains controversial in America, but different opinions across the broad spectrum should be tolerated. Whether they should all be approved of as socially responsible remains an issue for many.

Connect with us

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, soapboxie.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)

Google AdSense Host API

This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Facebook Login

You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Maven

This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.

Conversion Tracking Pixels

We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics

Author Google Analytics

This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)

Comscore

ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)

Amazon Tracking Pixel

Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)